^Try saying that name ten times fast.

First of all, it's been a long time. Been crazy busy, but now I'm back.

Can I just say, first of all, that I had no idea that gay marriage would be legal in Idaho now? That just amazes me. Even with the Windsor ruling, I had thought that this would take ten years or more to happen.

Now, on to the issue that I want to (mini) rant about. These two articles form the basis of my impressions on what's going on in Idaho.

The Conservative Nutball:

http://www.americanthinker.com/2014/10/g...eedom.html

The Usually Silly "News" Organization That's Right On:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/20...ation.html

What the Nutball doesn't realize is:

a.) the couple didn't try to force the "wedding chapel" to marry them after they were turned away, said chapel sued for the right to discriminate and got their homophobic asses handed to them in court, so it's their own fault they got fined for breaking the local non-discrimination law

b.) wedding chapels, as opposed to churches are actually (only sometimes religious) for-profit corporations (as pointed out by the Daily Beast, an Elvis impersonator can legally run one) so, while they may seem to have the same freedom to act like total dickholes that Hobby Lobby was granted by the Supreme Court because Jeebus, they actually are supposed to serve the public in a nondiscriminatory way in the same way the jerks at the bakery or that idiot wedding photographer were required to.

On the face of it, from there, this is an open and shut case. Sure they have (stupid) religious reasons for their discrimination, but since they're not a proper church, they don't have First Amendment protections that are as strong as those of proper churches. End of story, right? Wrong.

The reason why there's such confusion, I feel, and the deeper problem with society is that religious organizations have cornered the market on marriage for centuries and people have just allowed that to continue because it's easier to do than actually question whether religious organizations should be able to legally marry people.

The thing is that churches and other religious organizations don't legally have the power to certify marriages, as that power is "invested in" whoever in that organization is legally recognized by the federal government to certify the marriage. This also allows Joe Schmoes and Elvis impersonators to become ordained priests on the Church of Lot$a Money so they almost instantaneously have government backing for their wedding related nuttery.

The other problem is that it's apparently (based on anecdotal evidence here, so correct me if I'm wrong) comparatively a pain in the ass to go to city hall and get married. So that means if you're a gay couple looking to get married in a state that just allowed gay marriage and the majority of the churches are heavily Christian, your options are:

1.) Wait in line at city hall- how romantic
2.) Hope you find a liberal Christian church to marry you
3.) Hope there's an obscure liberal religious organization nearby (like UU or Wicca)

Similarly, if you're an atheist, your options are:

1.) Wait in line at city hall- again, how romantic
2.) Hope you find a registered Humanist celebrant to conduct a secular ceremony (thankfully, they're growing in number, but not fast enough)
3.) Hope there's an obscure liberal religious organization nearby (like Satanists)

Not to focus too much on me, but if I wanted to marry my Baha'i girlfriend tomorrow, then by Baha'i religious law she's required to go through the Baha'i ceremony or lose her voting rights in Baha'i elections and gain the resulting social disapprobriation, and not only would I be required to say "Verily we will abide by the will of God" which would be lying in front of everybody (by agreeing to say something I didn't mean, it'd crossing my fingers behind my back metaphorically- HOW FUCKING ROMANTIC!), but if I wanted to have my voice heard so to speak, I'd either have to:

1.) Wait in line at city hall (and make sure that it was before the Baha'i one in order to allow me to feel easier about saying "Verily..." etc. knowing that was the legal one)
2.) Hope I find a registered Humanist celebrant (again, it'd have to be before so that it would be the legal ceremony)
3.) Shut up and let the Baha'i ceremony be the only legal ceremony

That's not really fair in any of the three cases, now is it? It seems to me, then, that government has granted religion, especially Christian religion, way too much power by investing them with the ability to wrap up the marriage and wedding in one.

I'm not saying that people shouldn't have the ability to have weddings that are meaningful to them, or that they should be forced to schlep to city hall to legally certify their marriage after the wedding (although that apparently is the case in Europe and the world hasn't exploded). But here's how I would fix all this whining about "religious exemptions," unless the European alternative that is currently in place is more feasible.

1.) Go to Church of Oogaboogah. Request to have a wedding there.
2.) Have your wedding if they're fine with that. Then fill out short paperwork, sign on the dotted line along with the minister or witness, then send it off to city hall.
3.) If Church of Oogaboogah is a bag of dicks to you and your beau and refuses to have the wedding, then you can legally force them to give you the paperwork anyway so you don't have to secure it elsewhere. Then you can find someplace else.

Thoughts?

http://atheistforums.org/thread-29238.html

It's already running multiple pages.

(October 23, 2014 at 7:00 pm)StealthySkeptic Wrote: ^Try saying that name ten times fast.

First of all, it's been a long time. Been crazy busy, but now I'm back.

Can I just say, first of all, that I had no idea that gay marriage would be legal in Idaho now? That just amazes me. Even with the Windsor ruling, I had thought that this would take ten years or more to happen.

Now, on to the issue that I want to (mini) rant about. These two articles form the basis of my impressions on what's going on in Idaho.

The Conservative Nutball:

http://www.americanthinker.com/2014/10/g...eedom.html

The Usually Silly "News" Organization That's Right On:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/20...ation.html

What the Nutball doesn't realize is:

a.) the couple didn't try to force the "wedding chapel" to marry them after they were turned away, said chapel sued for the right to discriminate and got their homophobic asses handed to them in court, so it's their own fault they got fined for breaking the local non-discrimination law

b.) wedding chapels, as opposed to churches are actually (only sometimes religious) for-profit corporations (as pointed out by the Daily Beast, an Elvis impersonator can legally run one) so, while they may seem to have the same freedom to act like total dickholes that Hobby Lobby was granted by the Supreme Court because Jeebus, they actually are supposed to serve the public in a nondiscriminatory way in the same way the jerks at the bakery or that idiot wedding photographer were required to.

On the face of it, from there, this is an open and shut case. Sure they have (stupid) religious reasons for their discrimination, but since they're not a proper church, they don't have First Amendment protections that are as strong as those of proper churches. End of story, right? Wrong.

The reason why there's such confusion, I feel, and the deeper problem with society is that religious organizations have cornered the market on marriage for centuries and people have just allowed that to continue because it's easier to do than actually question whether religious organizations should be able to legally marry people.

The thing is that churches and other religious organizations don't legally have the power to certify marriages, as that power is "invested in" whoever in that organization is legally recognized by the federal government to certify the marriage. This also allows Joe Schmoes and Elvis impersonators to become ordained priests on the Church of Lot$a Money so they almost instantaneously have government backing for their wedding related nuttery.

The other problem is that it's apparently (based on anecdotal evidence here, so correct me if I'm wrong) comparatively a pain in the ass to go to city hall and get married. So that means if you're a gay couple looking to get married in a state that just allowed gay marriage and the majority of the churches are heavily Christian, your options are:

1.) Wait in line at city hall- how romantic
2.) Hope you find a liberal Christian church to marry you
3.) Hope there's an obscure liberal religious organization nearby (like UU or Wicca)

Similarly, if you're an atheist, your options are:

1.) Wait in line at city hall- again, how romantic
2.) Hope you find a registered Humanist celebrant to conduct a secular ceremony (thankfully, they're growing in number, but not fast enough)
3.) Hope there's an obscure liberal religious organization nearby (like Satanists)

Not to focus too much on me, but if I wanted to marry my Baha'i girlfriend tomorrow, then by Baha'i religious law she's required to go through the Baha'i ceremony or lose her voting rights in Baha'i elections and gain the resulting social disapprobriation, and not only would I be required to say "Verily we will abide by the will of God" which would be lying in front of everybody (by agreeing to say something I didn't mean, it'd crossing my fingers behind my back metaphorically- HOW FUCKING ROMANTIC!), but if I wanted to have my voice heard so to speak, I'd either have to:

1.) Wait in line at city hall (and make sure that it was before the Baha'i one in order to allow me to feel easier about saying "Verily..." etc. knowing that was the legal one)
2.) Hope I find a registered Humanist celebrant (again, it'd have to be before so that it would be the legal ceremony)
3.) Shut up and let the Baha'i ceremony be the only legal ceremony

That's not really fair in any of the three cases, now is it? It seems to me, then, that government has granted religion, especially Christian religion, way too much power by investing them with the ability to wrap up the marriage and wedding in one.

I'm not saying that people shouldn't have the ability to have weddings that are meaningful to them, or that they should be forced to schlep to city hall to legally certify their marriage after the wedding (although that apparently is the case in Europe and the world hasn't exploded). But here's how I would fix all this whining about "religious exemptions," unless the European alternative that is currently in place is more feasible.

1.) Go to Church of Oogaboogah. Request to have a wedding there.
2.) Have your wedding if they're fine with that. Then fill out short paperwork, sign on the dotted line along with the minister or witness, then send it off to city hall.
3.) If Church of Oogaboogah is a bag of dicks to you and your beau and refuses to have the wedding, then you can legally force them to give you the paperwork anyway so you don't have to secure it elsewhere. Then you can find someplace else.

Thoughts?

bypass the bullshit go to vegas.

Vegas- siphoning off your money since 1893.

(October 24, 2014 at 2:23 pm)StealthySkeptic Wrote: Vegas- siphoning off your money since 1893.

hey when in vegas have fun.